Despite the resounding silence that has met this blog, I am still confident that there is something important here. My family just returned from a short trip to Vietnam and Thailand, where we visited two somewhat similar nations in the midst of finding a satisfactory path to development and sound government. Both – given the recent coup in Thailand – are autocratic in some sense, but still attentive to public opinion and public welfare. Despite very different ideological labels, they both face very similar problems in terms of economic competitiveness, living in the shadow of China, rapid population explosion with a large proportion of young people, sectarian strife of various forms, environmental collapse despite relatively rich and fertile land, but with strong economic growth and rising expectations.

So what does this have to do with Expat Nation, you may ask? The connection and interdependence these nations have in a global economy is quite obvious. Vietnam only a few decades ago was perceived as firmly “Communist”. Now, like China, there are few indications that ideology matters at all to governance, although there is scant support for democracy. Finding a satisfactory relationship to global institutions of trade, finance, health oversight, and environmental protection seem to be very much on the minds of government leaders. The question is – where are the global institutions? Behind the curtains, all anyone can find is a bumbling Wizard of Oz.

Which brings me to some of the key premises of Expat Nation. Globalization of the economy has not been followed by globalization of governance. While the UN shows occasional promise as a means to develop such institutional frameworks, it is sadly much too slow and wedded to nationalist interests and constraints. Somehow, before the earth devolves into an overheated planet governed by “cowboy” states like the US, China, and Russia, we need much stronger institutions to serve our needs.

Whose needs? This is where Expat Nation diverges from more conventional Cosmopolitan and Internationalist thought. Realism requires that such institutions emerge from a coherent set of grassroots interests. Who benefits most from strong international institutions? Who is rich enough to have a long-term horizon, with genuine concern for preserving the global environment and commonwealth? Who is engaged in daily interaction with the nationalist interests of countries like Vietnam and Thailand, but dependent on win-win resolutions? Who is developing a new culture of tolerance, secularism, diversity, human rights, and equal opportunity?

Obviously there are many non-expats with these priorities; there are also millions of expats with strong nationalist beliefs and interests. But the underlying conjecture of Expat Nation is that there is a growing cohort of expats and like-minded individuals around the world who would opt-in to a stronger association if one existed. The mission of Expat Nation is to define such an association, to chart a path from here to there.

Along the way, Expat Nation will have to answer several key questions. First, who are we? Who can join; what will membership entail; what obligations and responsibilities will be inherent in participation? In the beginning, a place where flaky idealists and college students debate global governance may be enough. Ultimately, however, power will only accrue if the organization has money, influence, and a track record of progress on the problems of “nter-nation building.” These will require a commitment and responsibility that will rival the identity of nation state citizens. Second, why Expat Nation instead of existing channels for global cooperation and organization? The best way to answer this question will be through the success (or failure) of Expat Nation. Third, how will Expat Nation succeed beyond the gadfly stage, when it becomes the focus of counter-efforts from nationalists, governments, and Realists who don’t believe that any restraints or collaboration among global interests will be helpful in the long run? More important, how will Expat Nation survive subversion and hostile intentions, from well-funded constituencies that benefit from the status quo laissez faire environment?

I certainly do not know the answer to these and further questions. Right now it feels like whistling in the wind. I will be happy if a year from now real people are engaged in meaningful debate about Expat Nation, what it should stand for, and how to build a new identity that is something to be proud of in today’s world.

Every day, the American leadership asks Sunnis and Shiites: isn’t it time to forego your petty loyalties and forge a new and powerful Iraqi nation? The benefits seem clear enough: personal safety and security; the possibility of economic reconstruction; an independent nation without meddling from Iran and Saudi Arabia, much less the US. In many regions of the world, the emergence of nationalism and meaningful governance are one and the same.

Now, step-it-up one level, and ask the same question of Germans, French, and Greeks: Doesn’t it make sense to invest the European Union with more power, not less? The Euro has been a great success; why not ask for the same result in a unified code for legal systems and contracts, the regulation of monopolies like Microsoft, and trade negotiations with China? Does it really make sense to balkanize food and drug regulation, passports and immigration, anti-terrorism police work, or government oversight of financial markets?

Historically, we have seen many nations that were sustainable on a higher level of federation – e.g., the US after the Civil War – and many that were only sustainable on a lower level – e.g., the Czech Republic or Bosnia. There has been a great deal of political science devoted to understanding the difference. At some level, it comes down to millions of people deciding that “they will get more out of it” by affiliating at a higher level.

Globalism is really just the next level of aggregation. It makes sense because globalization is already well underway; what lags is governance. Not UN-style bureaucratic sluggishness, but governance in the same sense that we support national governments for domestic issues. Imagine if political disputes between two [United] States were resolved in the same manner that Britain and Argentina resolved the Falklands dispute. Or, that the FDA was a state-level function, and required drug approval in all 50 states before a drug could come to market. We have no trouble supporting government within a nation that has sufficient coherence, power, and authority to govern effectively. With globalization a fait accompli, we need more than a Wild West form of governance to achieve a civil world.

The question is, what should citizens do? You could send a check to Doctors Without Borders, or UNICEF, or Amnesty International. You could join one of the many interest groups with a global perspective on human rights, the environment, or worker safety. These are all worthwhile causes; eventually the global commons could metamorphose into something more civilized. However, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Expat Nation is potentially a novel and viral way for non-governmental forms of benign authority to emerge. First and foremost, it is not the UN, which as a descendent of nation-state politics is constrained to a very limited sphere of activity. Expat Nation is based on a different organizing principle: people with common needs and values voluntarily adopting a new, super-national allegiance. It is grassroots and self-selected; you don’t have to be born into it but you do have to choose to “immigrate.” As guests in host countries, expats have a unique position in the commerce of nations – if we don’t add more value than we cost, nations simply boot us out. As itinerant, unrepresented residents in host countries, we need more than our embassies and Chambers of Commerce to lobby for our interests.

What are our interests?

No taxation without representation

Focus tax revenues from expats on protecting the global commonwealth

The free movement of labor and capital, backed by . . .

Global institutions of law

Adoption of simplified means of conflict resolution that are scaled to the size of the problem, but backed by Expat Nation members

Uniform practices and policies to:

mitigate exploitation of the unprotected

rein in corruption

counter terrorism, the drug trade, and multi-national mafias

Encourage transparency in governance through the free flow of information

Give up anonymity (in tax reporting, [secure] internet usage, and most public roles) in exchange for accountability, security, and the protection of individual human rights

Enhance systems of trust and reputation to enable cooperation among unrelated parties

Democratic, but constrained by constitutional agreements to maintain a . . .

Globalist perspective over nationalist interests

The devil is in the details. As a work in progress, most of the details are still up for discussion. After all, this grassroots movement needs democracy and participation! There is no question that these general principles are rife with potential conflicts and internal inconsistencies. Where does legitimate national interest end and the global commonwealth begin? When is personal privacy protected and where does public accountability become more important? These questions are not easy to resolve with Expat Nation any more than they were without it.

I am optimistic that Expat Nation members can resolve these issues and move forward to establish more powerful and effective means of governance. We have a greater stake in successful globalization than most of our national brethren. Because we will aggregate based on shared interests and values instead of birth location, we can overcome the greatest barriers to collective action.

Equally important, globalism has been around the world of big ideas for quite some time, and it does not have a lot to show for it. We need to reconnoiter, learn from history, and start fresh. Today, I have no trouble identifying dozens of policies that could be adopted by Expat Nation “members” that would directly benefit me. Would others benefit the same way? Would these be enough to push potential members over the tipping point, from pure-nationalists to Expat Nation dual citizens? Without critical mass, Expat Nation will surely die.

Expat Nation is compelling precisely because there is “something in it for you.” It is not purely philanthropic; it is potentially a win-win for expats and host nations. To paraphrase Alfred Sloan (former president of General Motors), “what’s good for expats is good for the world.” Or, a little less arrogantly, expats are uniquely positioned to create and adopt civic governance that will benefit globalization and host countries alike. The challenge ahead is to build “Governance 2.0″ from scratch; gathering a critical mass of participants to be powerful, while staying true to the principles that make it effective.

To borrow from Robert Frost:

He only says, “Good fences make good neighbors.”
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
“Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down!”

What motive or benefit do I have for going “expat” instead of, say American? Does something have to shift in my psyche to adopt the expat stance or can I be both? I often feel more patriotic when abroad, and now you’re suggesting I feel less. Fair enough, but what benefit do I get out of it?

The short answer is: you can be both expat and American, in the same way that you may be a Californian and an American. We all have circles of widening affiliation, from family at the center to nation at the frontier. Globalism is, first, a call to extend your frontier to the global commonwealth. The real question is where you identify yourself: which circles would you die for; which would you go to court in, to settle a dispute; which you are willing to pay taxes; and which are thankfully forgotten. Historically, allegiances along this spectrum have been very dynamic. Expat Nation is, to begin with, a forum to reexamine these priorities and affiliations in the context of globalization.

There are both selfish and magnanimous reasons to cast a new circle, dismantle some old boundaries, and maybe build a few new ones. Since Expat Nation as a blog is dedicated to exploring and debating these issues, I won’t try to list all of the reasons now; instead, consider this prediction on http://www.longbets.org/:

Colin R. Glassey predicts: “By 2100 a world government will be in place and in control of: business law, environmental law, and weapons of mass destruction.”

Glassey goes on to explain his prediction as follows:

“Why? The logic seems self-evident to me. All humans face global problems of the greatest importance. Such as: global warming, global pollution of the air and seas, the degradation of the world’s oceans, global corporations which play one country off against another, and global criminal groups that seek to better themselves at the expense of just about everyone else. Global problems can only be solved by global solutions. The way to get global solutions is through a global government. Obviously many powerful entities exist which will try to prevent this from occurring. I predict that the United States will be one of the last hold-outs to a global government, even though the U.S. is well on its way to becoming the “de facto” world government as of 2002. Still, I’m hopeful. The same sort of logic that propelled the 13 colonies to join together in a Federal system of government back in 1789 is at play today, but on a worldwide scale. What it will take is a recognition of problems as being larger than any one country, and recognition of all human’s common bond with each other. Intellectually I would like to acknowledge my debts to: Robert Wright, Kim Stanly Robinson, E. O. Wilson, and David Brin. One-worlders unite!”

The interesting thing about this prediction is that nearly 2/3 of readers predict he is wrong. And while I understand their skepticism, I don’t think they considered all the possible pathways to the realization of such globalist institutions. Federalism from nation states acting collectively is only one path, and a very difficult one indeed. The fundamental premise of Expat Nation is that there are other paths that are grassroots in origin, voluntary in participation, and viral in propagation that will result in Glassey’s prediction coming true.

No matter how interesting I find international tax codes and regulatory policies, I am not a fool: most people find them boring. Myth and tradition come from the media these days. What Expat Nation really needs is a blockbuster movie.

Studio 60 recently had a brief storyline about a new series called “The Nations,” which is apparently a drama set at the UN. The Chairman of NBS [the network] describes it as an impending disaster for the business, since Americans are loathe to watch foreigners speak with subtitles about bureaucratic maneuvering. The heroic new president of the network, deliciously played by Amanda Peet, bids for the property anyway, instead of pursuing another reality TV project about infidelity and secret lives. Her pitch to the writer, with erudite references to Pericles, is based on the democratic appeal of the free “NBS” network over the more upscale and elite viewers at HBO. Ultimately the writer decides to go with NBS, because of the “street cred” of the Studio 60 director.

This little snippet is relevant for two reasons: first, internationalism is apparently creeping back into acceptability (or, Cosmopolitanism is creeping back into Vogue? ). Second, “street cred” is more important than Pericles. Expat Nation needs gutsy and sexy heroes, witty screenwriting, and moving storylines.

Despite the humble beginnings of this blog, someday I hope Steven Spielberg and Adam Sorkin will wander across it. When they do, they will need some help to see the potential for Expat Nation, which otherwise would make the apocryphal “Nations” seem like Gone with the Wind. I want your help: let’s brainstorm a screenplay! Something on the scale of HBO’s Rome or a mini-series would seem to be the best venue. I am looking for the wittiness and credibility of The West Wing; the drama and pace of Studio 60; the sci-fi [poli-fi?] of Battlestar Gallactica. . .

First pass proposal:

Opening:

Ahmad, a dashing Pakistani Rhodes Scholar, is pursuing Indira, a young Indian graduate student at the London School of Economics. He follows her into a lecture hall where David Held is delivering an inspirational speech on the emergence of non-governmental authority in the international sphere. Initially just to impress her, he debates her on the topic, gradually realizing that his nationalism is little more than chauvinism. Soon he is drawn into an underground network of international graduate students working on Expat Nation, led by the firebrand Zhao Baixing, who are tired of “research” and ready for “action.” Subplots would focus on mindless sectarianism in London slums, and multicultural love affairs akin to White Teeth.

Mini-plot 1:

Baixing challenges the group to bridge the gap from academe to popular cause, first by converting a superstar spokesman. Ahmad conspires to make a pitch to George Soros, through a clever series of misrepresentations. After finally getting his attention, Soros laughs Ahmad out of the room.

Mini-plot 2:

Through a fortuitous coincidence, Ahmad finds an opportunity to approach Zhang Yin [richest person in China, the recycling lady], who is visiting London. She attempts to recruit him to open a European branch office of her recycling business; he goes along to get her attention. During a meeting that Ahmad sets up to introduce Zhang to Baixing, Baixing is assassinated by . . .Chinese nationalist spies? Falungong zealots? Chinese spies posing as Falungong zealots? Whomever… Zhang and Ahmad escape; Zhang is transformed by the experience and sets up a $1B challenge grant for EN.

Mini-plot 3:

George Soros reconsiders. . .joins the leadership team. Tiger Woods comes on board, as the spokesperson; he converts his good friend, Roger Federer. Together, they found the post-nationalist Olympics, in which athletes take over control of the marketing and regulation of sports in which they participate. As the brains behind these new developments, Ahmad is elected President of EN.

Mini-plot 4:

Indira gets pregnant (by Ahmad); they agonize over what to do. Indira asks Ahmad to come home to visit her parents. The parents go ballistic; Indira and Ahmad both leave, discouraged, and angry at each other. Soon they realize that they only have each other left, with no home to go back to. They return to London.

Mini-plot 5:

Ahmad meets William, son of the Prime Minister of the British Virgin Islands, and a fellow Rhodes Scholar. William invites Ahmad to meet his father, James; Ahmad lays out the benefits to BVI of becoming a second-citizenship location for EN. James uses a loophole in the BVI regulatory code to let non-domiciled foreigners apply for citizenship. Soon, the BVI is inundated with immigration applications from EN citizens; the nominal population swells to 20 million; tax revenues also swell, making James a hero to his people and the Third World.

Mini-plot 7:

The CIA hires Russian ex-KGB agents to assassinate Ahmad. The plot is foiled by defectors. EN membership multiplies in the aftermath. . .

Mini-plot 8:

A new, Democratic, president is elected in the US. He [she?] offers EN members free immigration [leading to citizenship] in the US, in order to stanch the outflow of US citizens to EN. Ahmad gets far in negotiating a merger, then finally realizes that he is being corrupted by greed and American nationalist interests. He pulls out. . .
Mini-plot 9:

Poor farmers in Brazil picket the EN convention; placards identify EN with globalization and a growing rift between rich globalists and poor [nationalist] workers. The events drive a wedge between Ahmad and the more idealistic academics within the EN leadership. A severe schism develops. . . Indira takes the side of the idealists. . .asks for a separation. . .

Death, maybe. Taxes — in the era of global tax havens, widespread fraud, and code complexity that even the enforcers can’t figure out – are anything but certain. As an American who is taxed on all his income, because of citizenship, I was surprised to find the vast array and variation of expat taxation. It feels a lot like going to an expensive bar and finding out that everyone is getting free drinks except you. While I cannot believe that I am the only expat in the world paying taxes according to what all the governments say they are due, it certainly feels that way.

One of my most profound realizations about taxation came when we moved to China. Here, it is hard to find anyone who would pay any tax that was self-reported. Income tax filings? Hah! Most Chinese laugh at the suggestion that such an honor-based practice could ever work here. This led me to wonder where the American habit of voluntarily paying taxes originated. More important, it led me to realize that much of the strength and power of the American government derives directly from the willingness of Americans to be taxed according to a system that they believe (on some level) to be fairly legislated and executed.

I believe that global civil society is at an important juncture: either go down the path of narrow self-interest and paying minimal taxes, or recognize that governance and civility ultimately depend on a fair system of tax codes, enforcement, and compliance. As the “only paying customer at the bar,” sooner or later it makes sense to make sure others are pulling their weight. As a founding principle of Expat Nation, it makes sense to represent the paying customers instead of the free riders.

Let’s face it: taxes are broken. I could spend hours listing all of the random exceptions and perverse incentives, the overhead of collection and enforcement, the inability to corral free riders, and the huge inequities among peers not to mention “progressive” transfer payments between different groups. The question is, what can expats and Expat Nation do about it?

To begin with, it would make sense to focus on information, research, and representation. The “paying customers” benefit by knowing how much everyone at the bar is paying, even if the “comps” [complimentary customers] do not. It is easy to research tax codes for various jurisdictions to determine how compliant taxpayers in different countries fare in each. It would be even better to understand what the real payments are, much like looking over the tax returns of candidates for public office. Obviously the IRS has access to much more information than we do – is any of this available from the Freedom of Information Act? It would be very interesting to drive through some of the ritzier neighborhoods in the world, identify the occupants of the numerous mansions, and compare their tax burden.

The next step would be active representation of expat interests, to all host nations. For example in China, where real estate taxes and regulations were recently established for foreigners, no one represented expat interests except some real estate agents. I have read rumors that China plans to tax residents on all income, not just China-sourced, under a new income tax policy. What would happen if an organization representing the million or so expats in China, collaborating with Chambers of Commerce and embassies, coordinated a response?

In the realm of “poli-fi,” there are many opportunities for Expat Nation. Imagine an existing nation, such as Costa Rica or Panama, actively soliciting expats to become citizens without domicile. The expats would be taxed and managed in a different way than host-nation residents and citizens: their tax revenue would be earmarked for separate spending on Expat Nation priorities, less a small service percentage for the host country. The Expat Nation taxes would therefore be a tax credit against other countries’ taxes, such as the US’. Then, US expats could choose to allocate their taxes to solve global infrastructure problems, instead of paying to police Baghdad. How to spend this money would be, in my opinion, a “nice problem to have.”

I would certainly “emigrate” (or adopt dual-citizen status) if this were available. . .would you?

Among American immigrants today, the vast majority come for jobs or opportunity. Among expats overseas, a good fraction comes for opportunity, augmented by novelty and a variety of personal reasons. Many cities around the world are more international in their ethnic and cultural mix than they are representative of their homeland nations.

Because residency is defined by work more than other affiliations, and because of the increasing mobility from globalization, “home” and “homeland” are often separate. The personal ties we form as expats are based on work; on social groups such as clubs, gyms, and schools; and through various referrals and networks. Ties to place – home or homeland – are, in my opinion, secondary to ties to people we know. If there is a conflict between people or cultures, these anti-ties are equally powerful in forming affiliations.

The ties to place – as opposed to nation — are a gradual accumulation of personal ties and group affiliations we form in that location. Defining these ties as meaningful — in the sense of “homeland” and nationality — is a very complex process. For some, the personal experience of a melting pot community in a college dorm, for example, becomes a defining feature of nationality. For others, it is a common enemy in the Army, or a shared hardship like a tsunami, or racial discrimination, that defines a bond. These sub-national bonds are aggregated in some very personal way, until we define some aggregation as constitutive of our nationality. For different people, the sub-bonds that make up each personal definition of nation are likely very different. In Benedict Anderson’s analysis, the ties that form to nation are historically linked to print capitalism more than personal ties to place. While this may be part of the picture today, there seem to be many influences that define the groups we identify with, from personal experience to “imagined.” Regardless of the cause, we ultimately pin more of our identity and certainly our resources – taxes, conscription, and legal citizenship – on this aggregation called “nation.”

One important subset of these bonds or affiliations is essentially economic in origin. Where we live (rich neighborhood or poor), where we go to school, what companies we work for, who we interact with professionally and socially – these are largely economic decisions and consequences. “Belonging” also has a major economic element – if we feel needed and valued by employment, then we feel comfortable and connected regardless of whether we are in our homeland or elsewhere. Sometimes we have to choose between economic connectedness and homeland affiliation, such as a Chinese upper-class family choosing a successful international school vs. the local public school, in order to build different relationships for career and later life.

How important are economic affiliations relative to other ties that bind? Obviously it varies among different people, but we can look at some examples for anecdotal evidence. Aihwa Ong describes an example from interviewing many Hong Kong Chinese in Vancouver. The more recent, well-heeled arrivals bear considerable contempt for [previous] lower-class migrants with poor manners and social skills. The class barrier in this case certainly trumps ethnic, language, and racial ties. The multi-cultural colleges and high schools across the globe provide plenty of evidence of emergent ties superseding traditional connections. In the movie Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, a second-generation Chinese immigrant and his Indian college buddy are clearly more closely aligned to each other than they are to their parents. My international apartment building in Beijing provides a curious example: The Chinese staff monitoring the entries and elevators are much more likely to question and depose an unknown Chinese person, whereas foreigners of virtually any age, demeanor, or roguish manner can simply walk in unquestioned.

Quantitative assessment is a little harder to come by. One interesting estimator is the declining level of “hardship stipends” for international jobs. Expats are increasingly willing to take a job at a salary much lower overseas than they would accept in their homeland. While some of this is simply an awareness of the different cost of living, the trend over time – to what amounts to “negative hardship pay” – may indicate a preference for expat affiliation over homeland.

Shared economic interest is probably the most important factor in economic affiliation. In a global economy, the itinerant knowledge workers from all nations have a very similar set of interests. They [usually] face uniform barriers to entry or recruitment from national economies. Most nations favor their own nationals over expats for college admissions, scholarships, and tuition rates. In most countries, immigration policies are used to attract workers with scarce skill sets and deter low-wage workers from coming. Consequently, the global economy skilled labor force faces the same environment overseas, no matter where they come from.

These economic ties result in expats working for many of the same companies, teaching at the same universities, going to the same restaurants, and working out at the same gyms. Equally important, shared economic interest results in the same interface with local governments and nationalist interests, such as visas, airport security, residency registration, and health regulations. For example, if China opens a sector to foreign investment, all expats benefit and soon rush in. Similarly, if China restricts housing ownership to locals, all expat’s suffer as a result.

Expats have a much greater common economic interest with each other than they do with the average citizen of their homeland. In fact, global workers are usually at odds with their national compatriots on the issues of barriers to trade, labor and capital mobility, immigration policies, and national security policies directed at travelers, among other things. Indirectly, expats also have a much greater stake in non-governmental and international conventions, legal agreements, and standards, because these facilitate simpler trade and commerce. The more level the playing field, the better. Not so for nationals, many of who are still hoping to insulate themselves from an open world market.

Over time, shared economic interest will drive everything else – soon culture, educational curriculum, and values will begin to align, overcoming other barriers and traditions. Nations and governments will be powerless to stop it. If they try, it will simply speed their own decline as other, more prescient governments scramble to keep and attract multinational corporations, capital, and eventually, talent. In the neo-liberal anarchy of nation-states, it is “every one for themselves.” This could augur a very grim future for everyone, or it could mean something totally benign: new forms of non-governmental authority. . .

Global Civil Society is about understanding globalisation ‘from below,’ from the perspective of ordinary people.

It is a highly contested concept, for which many meanings have been proposed but no agreed definition reached. Far from an obstacle, this ambiguity is an opportunity. Debate about its meaning is part of what global civil society is all about.

We defined global civil society, for operational descriptive purposes only, as a sphere of people, events, organisations, networks – and the values and ideas they represent – that exist between the family, the state and the market, and which operate beyond the confines of national societies in a transnational arena. The concept describes an emerging reality of global civic action and connectedness.

Expat Nation is a subset of global civil society; it is a subset of the population that has chosen (or, in many cases, has at least adapted) to live away from their homeland. For many expats, of course, their identity is completely nationalist. For another large fraction of expats, they are clearly in transition from one national citizenship to another. But for a large and growing group, their citizenship is as much in global civil society as it is to any national state. When expats cross this line, they become citizens of Expat Nation.

This definition, of course, begs the question: “What is citizenship”? At a pragmatic level, it is as basic as the country that issues our passports. For many reasons, this definition is inadequate – dual citizenship, exile, and landed immigrants all defy categorization in this way. But more important, as an accident of birth instead of choice, and as a characterization of loyalty, national citizenship is no longer adequate.

Beyond representation overseas – i.e., passports and embassies – expats experience the ties of citizenship in many ways. Most of us still pay taxes to our homeland; we have family members who are subject to real or potential military conscription; and we are often discriminated against by host nations according to our nationality.

Similarly, representation of expats is already performed by many organizations other than national governments. For example: the chambers of commerce, the International Baccalaureate Organization overseeing international schools, and professional certification organizations are global institutions with some measure of membership and professional control. Charitable organizations like the Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation are international in scope and governed solely by their donors, however subject to public and international approval for their legitimacy. In the financial realm, stock exchanges and GAAP define the parameters of disclosure for public and multinational corporations. In addition, internationalist organizations such as the WTO, the WHO, and the UN peacekeepers around the world demonstrate the increasing reach of nationally-controlled international institutions and conventions. The emerging governance of global civil society is already well underway.

The key political question regarding governance of global civil society is “Who controls it”? There is a big difference between institutions under national government control – such as the UN, the WTO, and the IMF – and “bottom-up” organizations with specific missions and constituencies. Trying to satisfy the disparate and conflicting interests of national governments is like herding cats. Membership-driven institutions “from below” are likely to be much more effective in representing the interests of Expat Nation.

Expat Nation members have legitimacy in representing global civil society that nationals do not. As invited guests in host countries, subject to a clear “balance-of-payments” that always favors the host nation, expats are limited to win-win policy formulation. The days of colonization and imperialism are over – expats know that their social value must exceed their social cost within each host country.

Because of this legitimacy, the exercise of collective power by expats could be profoundly effective. We have already seen the power of NGOs such as Doctors Without Borders or the Clinton Foundation. Expat Nation could potentially exceed the membership of a large NGO (e.g., the Chambers of Commerce) but with a truly global constituency. With funding (a subject for later. . .), Expat Nation could become the major representative of expat interests.

Equally important, Expat Nation should be different from NGOs and organizations like the Centre for the Study of Global Governance in that it will be interest-driven rather than purely philanthropic. Expats are clearly beneficiaries of globalization, even if they are employed by NGOs whose primary function is to mitigate the adverse consequences of globalization. Finding a balance between narrow self-interest and advocating for global constituencies will be difficult, but hardly impossible. These somewhat-conflicting interests are at the heart of so many global issues today. By addressing these conflicts first within the purview of expats, it is highly likely that a reasonable balance can be struck, and hopefully, one that is transitively win-win for the global commonwealth.

The Governance section of the Expat Nation blog will explore the nature and potential of grass-roots initiatives for global governance. I hope that readers will submit ideas and suggestions that are prescriptive and normative. One reader coined the term “poli-fi” with its allusions to science fiction, political science, and Semper Fi – I think this pretty much captures the ideal spirit of Expat Nation.

In Steven Spielberg’s movie Munich, there is a scene where Avner, the Mossad agent and Ali, a Palestinian terrorist, discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in surprisingly candid and personal terms. Avner asks [and I paraphrase]: “Are the olive trees and the parched land really worth anything, after generations of wandering? You Palestinians can go anywhere. . .” Ali replies: “We can wait 100 years if we need to, but we will always come back. . .”

Palestine is the cultural opposite of Expat Nation – a place to call home for an ethnically and politically homogeneous nation. Even with all the mythmaking about the ties to land, this vision of nationalism rings hollow to me. In fact, I think it rings hollow for most people, diasporas and nationals alike.

The sense of belonging somewhere called home is based on much more than olive trees or the rich smell of earth. America is testimony to the rapid sense of belonging that emerges after less than a generation. The ebbs and flows of population today are driven by opportunity more than philosophy or ethnic affinity. Even within nations or the EU, people move for jobs and a comfortable lifestyle with newfound colleagues, friends and neighbors.

The ties that form at each stage of life are much more powerful than the ties of nation or tradition. Clearly family ties are in a class all alone, for most of us. When we look to do business or rely on someone who needs to be totally trustworthy, we start with family. The next round of community can form in a second grade class, a baseball team, a college dorm, or with new parents at a birthing class. These ties are personal; we form them for many reasons and some of them last a lifetime.

The next round is the one that concerns loyalties and ties to people we don’t know – Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities. As Anderson describes, these ties are based on a shared experience of culture, usually transmitted by books and newspapers in the last few centuries, and now movies, music, and the internet. Spielberg’s Munich has replaced the local gazette.

It is in this realm that our national loyalties are shaped and bounded. Anderson is very convincing about the role of the popular press in building the national consciousness. Historically, this phenomenon is quite new. Only since widespread literacy has the press been able to influence the majority of people. Nationalism, independent of ethno-centrism and tribalism at various levels, is only several hundred years old. And in that short time we have had how many wars to codify the division of land and hegemony among nation states?

Regardless, the battles for “Imagined Community” loyalty are the defining conflicts of our era. Whether it be Islamic Jihad vs. Western pluralism, Red vs. Blue states in the US, urban capitalist vs. rural farmer in China, these factions or affinities are the basis for identity and community. What is new is the extent to which these loyalties are selected by choice instead of birth. For an increasingly large group, we choose our affiliations. For Expat Nation, we have chosen to subordinate nationalist identity and community to something else; today that “something” is not well defined.

For most, it seems, our only common bond is “we can never go home again.” This alienation from homeland varies, but everyone sees his or her homeland differently after a long period overseas. Since my expatriation has roughly coincided with the post 9/11 era, I have witnessed a steady decline in the status of the US in the world, and a steady rise in many other countries’ reputation and power. Certainly the US’ self-imposed isolation and decline through two wars and the “War on Terrorism” have contributed to my alienation. But it has not been matched by a newfound loyalty to anywhere else. If anything, proximity to China has made me more jaded to all the machinations of government.

I think that expats from many nations, and many Chinese who have lived overseas, share my alienation. But this is only one dimension of our affinity. The effect of globalization on this stratum of the population has been to forge a community with much more in common than shared sources of news and information. And, if shared perceptions of the world are enough to forge nationalism, then we certainly have enough to begin the discussion about more collaboration.

If you have made it this far, you are probably wondering what hare-brained idea is behind this notion of “expats uniting.” After all, expats are a pretty fractious group, on the face of it. Maybe we can share a beer in Sanlitun, admire the locals, or show up for a World Cup broadcast, but that about sums up our “ties that bind.”

So, consider Exhibit One: Switzerland.

Culturally and linguistically, Switzerland should have been carved up into three provinces of France, Germany, and Italy. It is difficult logistically to cross from one section to another, more so than simply crossing the border for trade or commerce. And yet, somehow, this nation emerged centuries ago, forming an internal alliance with a strong military, an independent polity, a currency that has survived the Euro, and a unique economic niche that has thrived despite limited natural resources and no ocean ports.

What, historically, drove this unlikely union? Benedict Anderson (Imagined Communities; Verso, 1991) explains the anomalous nationalism of Switzerland in classic neo-liberal terms: the disparate cantons [Swiss towns or municipalities] found more independence in a loose affiliation within Switzerland than they could have had under their neighbors’ rule. And luckily, their neighbors saw them as ornery rubes and poor people — nobody and no resources worth fighting for. At least partially, Switzerland was an accident of history. But today, it seems more like a model for the European Union – rich, united, non-interventionist, multi-cultural, and a valuable service-provider to the nation states around the world.

Expats today are a lot like the Swiss, although sometime in the distant past. They are living in a remote canton, with limited representation or advocacy from their homeland nations. And, quite frankly, they prefer it that way – globalization rewards the unfettered pursuit of capitalism and trade. We are guests in the other nations of the world, the same way the Swiss have emerged as a desired trading partner without any history of colonialism or coercive policy. And gradually, we start to look and act more and more like each other; we may still speak German, French, or Italian, but our loyalties are elsewhere.

Ultimately, the reasons the Swiss united will have little resemblance to today’s expats; the analogy can only go so far because today’s globalization is fundamentally different from medieval Europe. But it probably began in simple ways — local habits for commerce and payments, resolving disputes, funding schools, and dealing with ethnic or religious conflict.

Which is beginning to look a lot like today’s expat world. We need health care, education for our kids, banking services, legal frameworks for contract enforcement, and advocacy in dealing with our host countries on scores of issues, to name just a few. Who is really taking care of these problems? More generally, expats see first hand the consequences of environmental degradation, lowest-common-denominator labor protections, and nationalist diversions from important policies like the Kyoto accords. Do you really think that Washington [or Moscow or Seoul or wherever. . .] is representing your interests?

The defining moment for me, as an American, came last year when “Dubya” came to visit Beijing. Huge issues demanded attention, from intellectual property to trade policy to currency valuation. W made no progress on any of these, however he did find time to visit a church and make a long-winded speech about freedom of religion in China. And for this, I get to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes . . .

Obviously I am not ready to renounce my US citizenship, however I do want better services and representation. My needs are similar to many other expats in China – it would be nice to have an international Chamber of Commerce, a Chinese-recognized contract arbitration system, an easy-to-get international driver’s license, a consumer-oriented oversight body for schools, hospitals, and insurance. . . These simple things are what is needed today.

If you are already an expat, you know what it feels like to be on the front lines of the globalization transformation. Even if you have managed to live your entire life without leaving your homeland, you might have noticed that things are different – there are a lot more “foreigners”? around, for one. Different languages spoken on the street, different groceries available at the corner market, different ways to offend people with comics, or spitting, or asking for the check…There is something major going on in every city of the world – but what, exactly, is it?

Globalization in the West usually refers to textile workers losing their jobs because everyone is shopping at Walmart. In the developing world it means CNN on TV and schoolkids dressed like gangbangers from LA. In fact, it is a transformation that is re-defining economics, culture, education, and politics everywhere in the world. And for those of us who are choosing to live, work, and travel further from our homeland, globalization means we are the bleeding edge.

Expat Nation is the site to explore what this trend is all about. City Weekend – the leading magazine and web-site for expats in China – is sponsoring this blog to raise everyone’s awareness. But Expat Nation is intended to go one step further than the political scientists and pundits who are heralding a new era: Expat Nation is a forum to discuss where these trends could and should go. The days of “…it happens”? are over; it is time to be more than a passenger to destinations unknown. Expats, because of their unique role as ambassadors and avatars in this brave new world, can make a difference.

Expat Nation marks the end of an era, when we identified ourselves as Koreans or Germans or Aussies. As time goes on, expats are developing a new identity, complete with multiple languages, a new culture, and inter-marriage across all ethnic barriers. This millennium will see the emergence of expats – and their sympathizers around the world! – as a new identity. It is time to consciously shape that identity into something we – and the rest of the world – can be proud of.

Expats of the World Unite!

Or, at least: discuss, debate, align, identify, and coalesce into more than the sum of ourselves. We hope you will join us. – JAS, Shifu